Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Ethics and Philosophy' started by Toffle, Sep 29, 2011.
On CBC today. Looks to be the start of another derivative/transformative debate.
The highway is for gamblers, better use your sense
Take what you have gathered from coincidence
The empty-handed painter from your streets
Is drawing crazy patterns on your sheets
This sky, too, is folding under you
And its all over now, Baby Blue
- Bob Dylan
just a bit..
There is an article on the New York Times as well; it seems he had a fondness for some of HCB's work.
Joan Baez has been warning us for decades about Dylan, but does anyone listen?
Who gives a toss about "celebrity" artists? Usually a bit oxymoronic anyway, no?
Uncanny, isn't it? Not a lot of room for doubt.
There is a long (and sometimes nasty... ) thread over on LFinfo about the guy who pixelized Jay Maisel's Miles Davis portrait. Much of the argument revolves around the difference between "derivative" and "transformative" use of someone else's art. It appears that Mr. Dylan has planted himself firmly beyond any shades of grey in the debate.
But he's still Bob Dylan and you're not.
Looks like HCB paint by numbers or Hipstamatic prints... IF ANYONE BUT JD tried to pass this off as originial work they would be kicked out of the curators office... perhaps a curator will be loosing their job....?!
IT IS FAR FROM DERIIVITIEVE... it's damn plagerism.
Derivative, I know that ain't good...Warren Buffet said so a long time ago...but I still like Bob's hat in the picture
I know a guy that can sing Dylan better than Dylan, and he's a lot more fun.
How many decades ago did he stop being relevant?
If it was anyone else, they'd be nailed with a suit. I don't have a whole lot of patience for lazy has-beens who think the rules don't apply to them.
A painter drawing inspiration from photography...I have never heard of that before, that is real news.
Oops, forgot about Courbet's La Chateau de Chillon, 1874...
Interestingly, Brazilian artist Vik Muniz did a similar thing, reproducing from memory images from the Life coffee table book, "Best of Life" which he had lost some years earlier. I have seen these works in Sao Paulo and they are truly stunning. In the case of Muniz, perhaps because of the feat of memory or the breadth of his artistic talent, there has been no suggestion of plagiarism.
By the way, though he works in many different media, (mediums?) sand, sugar, string, garbage, chocolate, spaghetti sauce, daimonds... his presentation is always a photograph, often gargantuan cibachrome prints. As I said earlier, quite stunning.
Leaving aside the plagiarism issue, those Dylan paintings are plain awful. As someone wrote above, they have a paint by numbers feel about them - lifeless and static.
One painting is not plagiarism,because he didn't paint photographer shadow ;-)
I have never liked his painting. Or any of his albums since Nashville Skyline in 1969. I am a huge fan of his music on that album and prior, but the fact is that plagiarism, "inspiration," "borrowing," adaptation, and acting like others have been his whole shtick from the start. I appreciate his work, and I think much of it is really on a level beyond what most artists are capable of...but I don't think of his talent as originality, per se. More like a master adapter, who draws, cuts, and pastes from all sorts of sources to "paint a picture" (hyuk hyuk) for his listeners.
So, copied paintings are right in line with my feelings on the guy, and with his known artistic methods. Just surprised they got put up. Shows the ignorance of the gallery owner, for one thing.
malcolm mclaren did the same thing but in reverse
but .. the only controversy was that anabella was 16
As the old saying goes (something like) "Copy one person's work and that's plagiarism, but copy several peoples' work and quote your references and it becomes research."
All Mr Dylan had to do was to have come up with some claptrap about "paintings based on photographs that reflected his experiences" and he couldn't have been criticised.
As musician-painters go, I admire the work of Tony Bennett.
Kinda reminds me of the joke from The Producers: "Hitler, now there was a painter! He could do an entire apartment in an afternoon, two coats!"
Gagosian ignorant? Think before you type, dear critic.
Gagosian is no stranger to controversy (ie Patrick Cariou winning case against Gagosian recently), all should give this a read...
Part of me thinks this Dylan work is shown and written up in the manner we see on purpose to create buzz for the show? Any press is good press...
FYI, that Leon Busy photography of the concubine in the opium parlor is an autochrome taken while Busy was in Vietnam for the French army. He was photographing for Albert Kahn's "Archives of the Planet".
As for Bob Dylan... he can do what he wants in my book. Desire is one of the best albums of the 20th century in my opinion.
No comment on the paintings.... people paint what they like, and no artist should concern themselves with legal issues, that is, until you try to sell stuff in which case you let your legal department do the worrying.
I have a premonition; this thread will spawn several heated arguments & personal attacks.
"Has been"??? Oh to have been an Ever Was. To many of those that listen, Dylan has done some of his best work in the last few years.
Artists have been ripping one another off for years. People have been ripping Bob off almost as long.